Most of the United States' wars have been started by Democrats. It may seem counterintuitive but it's true. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. This is a big question in IR, because obviously Democrats are the more dovish party.

There's a concept called diversionary war theory. The idea is that when the economy is bad or his poll numbers are down a president will engage in a foreign conflict to provoke what's called a "rally around the flag effect". (ie: before 9/11 Bush had low poll numbers, after 9/11 he had some of the highest ever) In a time of crisis the country comes together.

Some authors say this applies not so much to poll numbers as to the economy. But this still doesn't explain why Democrats have started more wars than Republicans.

I'm bullshitting with a bullshit little project right now that involved coming up with a bullshit hypothesis that was a bullshit part of the overall grade. In the process thereof I managed to come up with something though:

H1: Republicans' elite constituencies would prefer economic problems be solved by monetary policy whereas Democrats are more apt to rely on fiscal policy. It is easier to change monetary policy than to engage in diversionary conflict, but it is easier to engage in diversionary conflict than it is to change fiscal policy. Thus, Democrats will be more likely to divert than Republicans.

Republicans would rather fix the economy through the Fed. That's done by having Tim Geihtner talk to Ben Bernanke at lunch. Democrats would rather fix the economy by increasing federal expenditures, tweaking tax codes, etc. which requires a huge amount of effort. So basically, it's easier to talk to Ben Bernanke than it is to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth, but it's easier to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth than it is to change spending patterns and tax codes. So in the event of a high misery index, Republicans don't have as much reason to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth because it's easier to do what they would want to do in the first place. Democrats on the other hand do.

Thus: why most wars are started by Democrats.

I recently had an ex-girlfriend de-friend me on facebook. It's a little odd because the whole deal wrapped itself up like two years ago and I had kind of assumed that I was as inconsequential to this person by now as she is to me. So I can't help but analyze it some. The fact that I have a lot of stuff to do and really don't want to do any is contributing to that... a skosh. After employing hard earned skills that I will never use in the real world, I have two views on it. The first is that it's a a good outcome for me, the second that it's notable. How do I come to this conclusion empirically? Game theory.


A facebook de-friend is a serious social faux pas. Here's the reason why.

   - maintaining the facebook friendship takes nothing

   - player 1 de-friending player 2 takes effort

   - player 2 recognizes that it takes effort

   - player 1 recognizes that player 2 recognizes it takes

   - this in turn makes it more costly for player 1 than the simple action of clicking a button


But it's even more intense in this case. I really dislike the bitch at this point, and would assume the feeling is mutual. The particular situation was pretty hard on both parties and isn't the sort of thing you forget. So we'll start from the assumption that neither of us really want to see the other person's picture and status updates and what not. But nobody wants to seem as if the other person was getting to them in any way. A facebook de-friend is a costly action and social faux pas. To utilize it here is kind of a big deal.

Onto the fun part. You might be thinking that I'm mis-reading the situation for some reason. But through game theory I can deduce that I'm absolutely not. Here's what this particular game looks like. I've abbreviated it some, but this is essentially it (see below).

I'm player one, and she's player two. Where there's an X shows what her best response is given my action. For instance, if my action is “de-friend”, she's better off choosing “maintain” because to “cost of de-friend” is more than the cost of seeing the other person's shit. Or more importantly, if I maintain she's better off maintaining. This is why I know I'm right. In the first box you can see that for two years (maintain, maintain) was the equilibrium. Assuming she plays rationally, that means the cost of de-friending (C) is higher than the cost of seeing the other person online (S), hence the second X I placed in the top right box (de-friend, maintain).

BUT, that's no longer the outcome. The equilibrium has changed. Now the equilibrium is that she de-friended and I maintained. That's the second box. What can this mean? The cost of de-friend has changed for her. The cost of de-friend is (pleasure from not seeing the other person online) - (cost of losing face). One of these two things has changed on her part.

Now, the thing is that if she truly didn't give a shit either way, pleasure from not seeing the other person online should equal 0. The cost of losing face will always equal at least something which would make (C) negative. Pleasure from not seeing the other person online is essentially (S), though I forgot to write that down. Which would mean that if she truly didn't give a shit, it would never be rational to de-friend.

Dr. Grosser said we would use this stuff in our everyday lives. A dubious assumption for most, but I actually do so all of the time. I have to say though, this has definitely been the most fun application yet.

Down to brass tax. What does this all boil down to? In this game my optimum outcome was achieved. Somehow, I got under her skin more than she did mine. Two years on, the things I said were rough enough to when she my profile online it was difficult for her to some degree, and I cared less. I win.

Too bad game theory was last semester and I couldn't find an analogy pertaining to Emerging Democracy in North East Asia instead.

For the first post in this fresh new blog I've decided to talk about a subject close to my heart: television.

Television really is an incredible medium. In my opinion it's the ultimate form of art in the modern age. The creators have so many opportunities to get their point across, it doesn't really matter what strictures they are bound by in terms of network rules and demographic targets etc. Ultimately they'll get their point across. More importantly though, everyone and everything involved will leave an imprint on the final product in some way. As I will discuss in a minute, in terms of a television show being art, one of the most important of these factors in the context in which it was produced.

If a stranger were to ask me about my taste in television, at the moment I'd probably say my favorite show is Mad Men. But it would be a lie. The only reason I would say that is because I wouldn't want them to look at me funny. In reality, my main squeeze at the moment is Bewitched. Ironically for some of the same reasons as Mad Men.

Anyone who's known me for a length of time will tell you I'm prone to following some weird shows. Dharma and Greg was at the top spot on the old Tivo list for a little while. But I'll admit when a show is stupid and I enjoy it in an abstract manner. At the same time, I'm a critical viewer and can really tell good television. In my analysis of different shows, there are a multitude of factors but in the end the most important aspect foor me is the characters, particularly character development. I want to get to know them, I want to come to like them and I want to feel at home in their reality. This is really one of the big reasons I would call Bewitched a great show and put it in the same league as the Simpsons. The first two seasons at any rate. During the first two seasons of Bewitched the character development was amazing. The writers really took into account the complexities of the situation they were putting these different people into and if you really watch closely it shows.

To be sure there are drawbacks. The laugh track is terribly intrusive. What's particularly unfortunate is that during the first two seasons the jokes were genuinely funny and they really didn't need it. The show isn't dynamic. By the second year they were married Darrin and Samantha would have worked out a lot of issues that were never resolved in the show. Endora (Samantha's mother) would have been banned from the house by Samantha because she was really ruining their lives. Darrin would have quite McMann and Tate because it was a terrible working environment, not only due to the constant prying into his private life, but mainly because his boss and supposed best friend threatened to fire him every other week. Inflexibility is one of the pitfalls of shows of the era. Sitcoms used to be very formulaic. Maybe it had something to do with 30+ episodes a season was the norm.

However, for the downsides of it being made in the 1960s there are upshots as well. What I find particularly fascinating about the show is the context in which it was made. Bewitched is a show about the most mixed of marriages... and happened to be made during the civil rights movement.  It's a show about a woman more or less learning her place in society... and happened to be made during a massive cultural upheaval. It's a show about choosing to earn what you have in life rather than simply "zapping" it into existence... and happened to be made smack in the middle of the cold war.

What have I learned from my procrastination and incidental case study? Well, for as much as I love Samantha, I hate the values of the writers. They placed themselves on the losing side of the culture revolution. Darrin with his acquiescence to work, only putting his family first on Christmas eve. Him coming home and getting angry with his wife for not doing slave work the hard way, and the fact that ultimately Samantha agrees with him on it! And then there's the lack of cultural sensitivity in regard to witches as a separate species. True Blood viewers should be well acquainted with that theme. The show's treatment of women and cultural insensitivity is best exemplified in the fourth(?) season. Apparently the witches have a system of governance, a monarchy. And apparently the queen is chosen in a similar way to the Dalai Lama. The difference is that the to-be head witch doesn't know until she's installed. Long story short, Samantha is crowned queen of the witches, the highest honor among her people. Accommodating to Darrin's needs as always, she promises only to do royal business after midnight.  But some of those attending court were mistakenly waking up Darrin. Furious he demanded she abdicate, in front of her subjects no less. Now from where I'm standing, while it's true that when something is earned it holds more meaning, witches are clearly a superior species. And not only that, but Samantha has become the head of the witches. Given that witches live for centuries, she'll be getting her cute little ass kissed for a lot longer than Darrin will be around.  In 2010 the equation is simple: her job is more important and is more consequential for her life than yours is for you. Get ready to spend some quality time with Tabatha. But in 1967, they had a blowout fight that ended up with Samantha agreeing to step down after her mandatory year was up. It's unlikely that these were stances held only by the writers of the show. Given that Bewitched was wildly popular these values had to be held by a large portion of the audience as well.

What's interesting though, is that upon re-watching some episodes of I Dream of Jeannie, it becomes apparent that Tony and Jeannie were placed on the opposite divide of the culture revolution. Both shows ripped on hippies, but Jeannie did so in a gentle way. Bewitched took it as a given that they were the bane of society. Roger Healy (third character in Jeannie) held a "mod party" at which Tony and Jeannie fit right in. Tony accepted some of Jeannie's culture (that of white, blonde haired Iraqis from 2000 years ago) and never really had a problem with her magic at base level. His issue was that she always botched it or used it at inappropriate times. He actually banked on it at times. While Darrin was pissed if his breakfast wasn't hand made Tony tried to keep Jeannie from actually cooking.

Tony's take on magic versus that of Darrin is another interesting reflection on the politics of the time. Tony too believed in hard work and building something with your own two hands. He was an astronaut and exemplary of American enthusiasm and a huge proponent of American exceptionalism. Anything less would have been unfitting. However, Tony would leverage Jeannie's abilities when it didn't mess with the big picture. Darrin on the other hand "forbid" magic in his house at all times... except of course when they ran out of gas in the pouring rain (it's all laissez faire until you get into deep shit). Thus we can see Tony as a reflection of Johnson's Great Society, while Darrin put a Goldwater sticker on his Corvair.

Oh yeah, before I wrap this up, that's another thing that strikes me about these shows. Both were direct competitors on different networks... and both were sponsored by GM. Darrin drove Chevrolets, Tony drove Pontiacs (specifically GTO convertibles). These were the days when General Motors had such a massive market share it's brands actually competed with one another. I could write for hours on that alone. 

So once again I find myself asking the eternal question: I Dream of Jeannie versus Bewitched. On their merit as a quality television show, there's no doubt that during it's first two seasons Bewitched faaaar outclassed Jeannie. After that Jeannie probably had the edge, but that's more a matter of personal taste. At that point both shows were pretty stupid. As to the likability of characters, again after the first two seasons Bewitched went downhill in a major way. Some of the characters still had their moments, but on the whole it was mostly Darrin screaming, Larry being a prick and Endora not being used to a fact of life. Jeannie had a cast of characters it was hard not to love. But then again, Samantha's just so damn sweet she makes up for the rest of them. Hotness of female lead: Jeannie's got the body, but Samantha's got the face. How well can I see myself as a part of their world? The Stephens' don't share my values, whereas Tony Nelson and his magical sex slave do.  At the same time, the Sopranos didn't share my values and I felt comfortable in their house.

So in the end it comes down to one thing: Tony drives a GTO, Darrin drives a Corvair.